Turnbull prods Coalition on foreign policy

Malcolm Turnbull
delivered a sparsely reported foreign policy speech in Melbourne during the week, and the content did little to counter an impression the member for Wentworth is intent on staking out territory that goes beyond his Communications portfolio.

He has embarked on an interesting voyage of discovery in his own efforts to define what makes sense in dealing with China. This is contested space in a foreign policy debate we need to have.
Julie Bishop
, the Liberals’ foreign policy spokeswoman, finds herself caught between the muddled neo-conservative
Tony Abbott
and a Turnbull voyaging in his own galaxy, with backbencher
Josh Frydenberg
nipping at their heels.

The prolix and widely published Frydenberg is a source of considerable irritation to his colleagues, not least to Bishop. Abbott’s offer to raise
Julia Gillard
a “permanent base’’ in his version of the card game Texas hold ’em on the occasion of Barack Obama’s appearance in the Parliament last month would have been humorous, if it were not for its implications.

The American alliance as a wedge issue dies hard in the Liberal Party’s upper echelons. Bishop’s discomfort about her leader’s rhetoric was apparent on Sky News’s Sunday Agenda as she danced around questions about what she actually thought of Abbott’s offer of “permanent" facilities, as opposed to Gillard’s agreement to a relatively modest deployment of American marines. The loyal deputy did not decry her leader’s offer, nor did she evince much enthusiasm. You can be sure she wasn’t consulted before Abbott delivered his remarks.

Flowers bloom and thoughts contend in the Liberals’ foreign policy space. Does any of this matter ? The short answer is “yes" because we are talking about an alternative foreign policy that lacks definition because of Abbott’s clunkiness.

Turnbull has little leverage on policy formulation itself but his views are worth considering as they provide a counterpoint to mainstream Liberal thinking that is pretty unadventurous for the most part. Turnbull, who has taken to quoting Mao, including repeating the late chairman’s words in Mandarin, has now delivered two substantial foreign policy speeches in the past few months.

The latest, the Sir Edward “Weary" Dunlop oration to an audience that included members of the Melbourne establishment, was derivative of an earlier speech to the London School of Economics. This piece of work revealed Turnbull and his researchers had cast their thoughts widely on how to manage China’s rise, darting back and forth between Chinese history of the 15th and 20th centuries.

What we notice in these contributions is Turnbull thinking aloud about how to come to grips with the China phenomenon and not necessarily reaching any conclusions beyond a belief that no purpose would be served by actions that contributed to an impression in Beijing that it was being contained.

Related Quotes

Company Profile

“Our strategic response to the rise of China therefore should be to continue to deepen our engagement with that nation, and at the same time hedge against improbable but adverse future contingencies, as opposed to seeking to contain [futilely in all likelihood] a rising power," he said in Melbourne.

This observation is unexceptional but is unlikely to be expressed in those clear-cut terms by Abbott.

Turnbull leans towards ANU strategic analyst
Hugh White
’s view that regional security is better served by a “power balance rather than a powerful enforcer". He does not subscribe to White’s controversial perspective that the US should yield “primacy" to China in the south-west Pacific.

Turnbull is defining himself as a foreign policy sceptic, which is no bad thing. A bit more scepticism by some of his Liberal colleagues might have forestalled mistakes that have occurred in the recent past.

Turnbull was having a go at the Labor leader in the following extract from the Dunlop oration, but equally he could have been talking about his own.

“If extravagant professions of loyalty and devotion to the United States strike a somewhat awkward note for many Australian ears, how do we imagine they sound in the capitals of our neighbours," he said.

In Canberra, Turnbull’s maverick foreign policy statements might afford an additional strand for diplomats with time on their hands beyond recording the dysfunctionality of the Gillard-
Kevin Rudd
relationship. His colleagues could do worse than pay attention, too, even if they are not enamoured with the messenger.

“Where the Chinese people have stood up . . . so indeed should we," he said.

Whether this was a comment on a doe-eyed Australian political class, as he put it, or something else, the words were arresting. These speeches are worth reading as much for what they tell you about an intriguing politician’s trajectory as anything else.